Washington Nationals Concept

[Maz]

Thats right, a Washington concept...

I did alter the 2001 NBA All-Star Game logo for the main one, but, besides that, its all of my doing. I know the regular ones are very similar, but the logos and alts are different.

I know it could probably be better, so, what do you think?

[Krona]

these look very 80s in that usa today/cracklin oat bran/murphy brown sort of way.

[Maz]

these look very 80s in that usa today/cracklin oat bran/murphy brown sort of way.

Gee, well, um... Thanks,i guess.

Any ideas on how to make it not look 80s in that usa today/cracklin oat bran/murphy brown sort of way.

[Jigga]

these look very 80s in that usa today/cracklin oat bran/murphy brown sort of way.

If by 80's you mean generic, uninspiring, and inconsistent, then sure it's 80's. I remember the 80's as being anything but generic, uninspiring, and inconsistent...but I've got some concept bashing to do, so here goes:

Maz, I hate to be mean, but since I have been absolutely grilled for minute (my-noot, not men-it) things, I can't really help it. Too many decent to outstanding designers (not that I am one by any means) get skewered for the smallest things, but most people say little to nothing when someone presents substandard work. Mainly they don't care enough to say anything, but this concept just struck a nerve ...mainly because I have been working on a Nationals set for damn near a year that I can't get right and wouldn't dare post until I think I've nailed it.

IMHO, it's so plain that it's torturously boring. Nothing about this is Major League Baseball quality. Dude, seriously, how much time did you spend on this? It just looks like something thrown together in 10 minutes using MS Word's WordArt function and couple of logos you "modified" mixed with some clip art in Paint. It's too forced.

You didn't make the logo so, of course, the complexity of the logo (well, before you butchered it) is completely in conflict with the sheer simplicity of the wordmark (if you can call it a wordmark), and that's not a good thing. There needs to be consistency in the package. Look at the current Nats set, it's consistent as hell. I think it's a bit plain, but what Mr. Radom did with it, he did well. His secondary looks like an extension of the primary logo. "Your" secondary looks like you pulled two images off the MS Clip Art Gallery and slapped 'em together.

Sorry to be harsh, but I've had concepts called an abomination for friggin' color choices and team locations. Your concept is just bad form. You seriously need to give some real effort before you post something if you want a community of sports logo geeks, hacks, designers, and aficionados to actually take notice.

Study other concepts. See how quality designers do things. Take mental notes. Hell, take REAL notes. Ask questions. People on this board are so helpful it's scary. But most of all practice, practice, and practice so more. And by practice I do not mean submit stuff on these boards that you just whipped up to show everyone what you did after school today. Practice for real, and when you think you have something worthy of showcasing to the world, present it with the confidence that you've done your best. However, if you think this concept is the best you can do, don't show anything.

Again, I?m sorry to be mean, rude, an ass, a dick, or whatever...just take this as some advice from another novice who is actually concerned if you think this is quality work.

[ColeJ]

these look very 80s in that usa today/cracklin oat bran/murphy brown sort of way.

Gee, well, um... Thanks,i guess.

Any ideas on how to make it not look 80s in that usa today/cracklin oat bran/murphy brown sort of way.

#1) use a different font. that font is very bland, and wouldn't cut it in pro sports today.

#2) maybe change up the shades of red and blue, or at the very least, use a seperator color. the colors you chose sorta bleed together.

#3) 2 of the logos use black, but none of the uniforms use it... and none of the cap logos use it...

basically, the concept has a few inconsistencies or bland elements, that teams used to get by with in the 80's, but you rarely see anymore.

[Maz]

these look very 80s in that usa today/cracklin oat bran/murphy brown sort of way.

If by 80's you mean generic, uninspiring, and inconsistent, then sure it's 80's. I remember the 80's as being anything but generic, uninspiring, and inconsistent...but I've got some concept bashing to do, so here goes:

Maz, I hate to be mean, but since I have been absolutely grilled for minute (my-noot, not men-it) things, I can't really help it. Too many decent to outstanding designers (not that I am one by any means) get skewered for the smallest things, but most people say little to nothing when someone presents substandard work. Mainly they don't care enough to say anything, but this concept just struck a nerve ...mainly because I have been working on a Nationals set for damn near a year that I can't get right and wouldn't dare post until I think I've nailed it.

IMHO, it's so plain that it's torturously boring. Nothing about this is Major League Baseball quality. Dude, seriously, how much time did you spend on this? It just looks like something thrown together in 10 minutes using MS Word's WordArt function and couple of logos you "modified" mixed with some clip art in Paint. It's too forced.

You didn't make the logo so, of course, the complexity of the logo (well, before you butchered it) is completely in conflict with the sheer simplicity of the wordmark (if you can call it a wordmark), and that's not a good thing. There needs to be consistency in the package. Look at the current Nats set, it's consistent as hell. I think it's a bit plain, but what Mr. Radom did with it, he did well. His secondary looks like an extension of the primary logo. "Your" secondary looks like you pulled two images off the MS Clip Art Gallery and slapped 'em together.

Sorry to be harsh, but I've had concepts called an abomination for friggin' color choices and team locations. Your concept is just bad form. You seriously need to give some real effort before you post something if you want a community of sports logo geeks, hacks, designers, and aficionados to actually take notice.

Study other concepts. See how quality designers do things. Take mental notes. Hell, take REAL notes. Ask questions. People on this board are so helpful it's scary. But most of all practice, practice, and practice so more. And by practice I do not mean submit stuff on these boards that you just whipped up to show everyone what you did after school today. Practice for real, and when you think you have something worthy of showcasing to the world, present it with the confidence that you've done your best. However, if you think this concept is the best you can do, don't show anything.

Again, I?m sorry to be mean, rude, an ass, a dick, or whatever...just take this as some advice from another novice who is actually concerned if you think this is quality work.

Wow. Uh. ok. I'll work on that. To tell the truth that is what i did. I did use MS Paint, I did put together clip art. I did take 10 {15 actually} minutes t do it. I guess you could call it more of an imaginary throw-back sorta thing if it looks so 80's. As a matter of fact i'll post a "what if" topic and see what there real professionals can come up with. Then, i'll study it. See what they do.

I understand i shouldnt post anything that i dont think looks like it'll survive here and i agree i did a bad job on it, but, cut me alittle slack here. This only my 3rd real concept, and ,i'll admit, none of them look any good compared to you guys, but, wasnt the idea of this place was to be a place where logo & sports enthusiasts can come together, not compete and critisize? I understand where youre going with this but i think you are blowing this alittle outta proportion here. Its only a concept.

To tell you the truth you got me bewildered here. Sorry I tried.

[Shumway]

Most everyone starts trying to do as many concepts as they possibly can when they first start, and they think it's practice by spending 10 minutes on it.

Although it may have been harsh in your eyes, what gregjigga said was good advice. I was in the same situation you were in when I first started on here, but by seeing other concepts, I've greatly improved. Don't get discouraged, just "study up" on other concepts and spend a little more time on concepts. I've been working on a concept for well over 2 months now, and I'm nowhere near finishing it.

As for C&C:

- The fonts(essentially all of them) are very bland and not doing anything for the uniforms

- The number on the back seems to be too big to me

- I do like the alt. vest, but it's too similar to the Rangers' alt

- I'd put more white in the BP jersey

- I think simply using capital letters for the wordmarks on the jerseys would be an upgrade, but the font in general has to change

- The cap logo's decent, but a white outline would go a long way

- Piping would definitely help

- For some reason, I think blue hats might be more successful.

[VitaminD]

Maz...

C&C doesn't help if it isn't honest. What you've gotten here is objective remarks from people who had no involvement in the creative process. As such, they are emotionally detached from the piece in question, and have not invested any of themselves in it. Not only have you invested a piece of yourself in your labor and subsequent display, but you're going to react viscerally when the piece is knocked.

Objectively, a lot of what Cole, Jigga and Shum are saying is absolutely correct. Read what's been said objectively without infusing a tone or an emotion to what they said. Sometimes, truth can be a slap in the face - especially when it's a project that you're proud of.

You can take a lot from these first few efforts, and you're only going to get better. The worst thing you can do now is be down on yourself and give up. No one is suggesting that. Quite the opposite; this is how we all learn and advance our skills. Nobody puts out Grade A work their first time out, unless they're in design programs at school. And you can do a lot with MSPaint; it's my program of choice and I think I do some decent stuff with it. Of course, it takes me a lot more than 10-15 minutes, and I've been fiddling with this stuff for a while. Why? More discriminating choice of fonts (which I often modify myself), colors and styles that resemble what's used today with a bit of unique style thrown in to make it stand out from the rest. And I try to use Clip Art as little as possible.

Now, what did they say that's constructive?

- change the font (Franklin Gothic upper/lowercase isn't even used by high schools, let alone an MLB team);

- embellish the monograms (again, overlaying a "D" and "C" from an MS Word font in one color without outlines or drop shadows isn't something that looks polished);

- unify your design (why would a team wear a "DC" monogram for some of their games and a "W" in the same style for others? Pick one and stick with it. Make the logos match your design. Make the wordmark blend in with your design. Your logo uses black and gold heavily, which do not appear anywhere in the uniform design. Stuff like that.).

In addition, you may want to look into a better template. The one you've been using isn't doing you any favors.

It's all good advice, and no one's turning this into anything personal against you (although it may feel like it a little bit). You had the stones to put your work up for public scrutiny, and everyone is giving you an unbiased, unvarnished commentary in return. Truthfully, you couldn't ask for anything more. Most folks here are happy to help, and you can use them to make yourself better. Just give it time and take the advice you get as a learning tool.

[ninersdd]

Yeah I agree, too bland, especially the wordmark

[LMU]

The only thing I'll add is if you're going to borrow and tweak the 2001 NBA All Star Game logo, please give some credit for using it.

[uniguy22]

The only thing I'll add is if you're going to borrow and tweak the 2001 NBA All Star Game logo, please give some credit for using it.

He did admit it was the 2001 All Star game logo.

[AHcreative]

Yeah... I don't really see these working for this day-and-age. Maybe 20 years ago, but not now. Sorry.

[Maz]

Alright, i admit i took some of the advice too hard.

I guess im not very used to the colorful C&C you guys have to offer.

I should have a different version comig soon, but, remember...

Im not an expert

[Maz]

I changed the reds, and some uniform elements. Also i redid the whole wordmark and cap concept.

I wont have the logos up for awhile. I need alot of time on those.

[FiddySicks]

these look very 80s in that usa today/cracklin oat bran/murphy brown sort of way.

If by 80's you mean generic, uninspiring, and inconsistent, then sure it's 80's. I remember the 80's as being anything but generic, uninspiring, and inconsistent...but I've got some concept bashing to do, so here goes:

Maz, I hate to be mean, but since I have been absolutely grilled for minute (my-noot, not men-it) things, I can't really help it. Too many decent to outstanding designers (not that I am one by any means) get skewered for the smallest things, but most people say little to nothing when someone presents substandard work. Mainly they don't care enough to say anything, but this concept just struck a nerve ...mainly because I have been working on a Nationals set for damn near a year that I can't get right and wouldn't dare post until I think I've nailed it.

IMHO, it's so plain that it's torturously boring. Nothing about this is Major League Baseball quality. Dude, seriously, how much time did you spend on this? It just looks like something thrown together in 10 minutes using MS Word's WordArt function and couple of logos you "modified" mixed with some clip art in Paint. It's too forced.

You didn't make the logo so, of course, the complexity of the logo (well, before you butchered it) is completely in conflict with the sheer simplicity of the wordmark (if you can call it a wordmark), and that's not a good thing. There needs to be consistency in the package. Look at the current Nats set, it's consistent as hell. I think it's a bit plain, but what Mr. Radom did with it, he did well. His secondary looks like an extension of the primary logo. "Your" secondary looks like you pulled two images off the MS Clip Art Gallery and slapped 'em together.

Sorry to be harsh, but I've had concepts called an abomination for friggin' color choices and team locations. Your concept is just bad form. You seriously need to give some real effort before you post something if you want a community of sports logo geeks, hacks, designers, and aficionados to actually take notice.

Study other concepts. See how quality designers do things. Take mental notes. Hell, take REAL notes. Ask questions. People on this board are so helpful it's scary. But most of all practice, practice, and practice so more. And by practice I do not mean submit stuff on these boards that you just whipped up to show everyone what you did after school today. Practice for real, and when you think you have something worthy of showcasing to the world, present it with the confidence that you've done your best. However, if you think this concept is the best you can do, don't show anything.

Again, I?m sorry to be mean, rude, an ass, a dick, or whatever...just take this as some advice from another novice who is actually concerned if you think this is quality work.

Wow. Uh. ok. I'll work on that. To tell the truth that is what i did. I did use MS Paint, I did put together clip art. I did take 10 {15 actually} minutes t do it. I guess you could call it more of an imaginary throw-back sorta thing if it looks so 80's. As a matter of fact i'll post a "what if" topic and see what there real professionals can come up with. Then, i'll study it. See what they do.

I understand i shouldnt post anything that i dont think looks like it'll survive here and i agree i did a bad job on it, but, cut me alittle slack here. This only my 3rd real concept, and ,i'll admit, none of them look any good compared to you guys, but, wasnt the idea of this place was to be a place where logo & sports enthusiasts can come together, not compete and critisize? I understand where youre going with this but i think you are blowing this alittle outta proportion here. Its only a concept.

To tell you the truth you got me bewildered here. Sorry I tried.

OK, ill give you a break because it was done in MS Paint. Im gonna give you some advice on what i think makes any Paint concept good. Theres one thing that so many people overlook when doing paint concepts, only one thing people have to realize to make a Paint concept good. Whenever you make a concept in Paint, you have to work as hard as you possibly can to make it look as if it WASNT done in paint. Take the extra time and effort to make it look like it was done in a more advanced program. And how do you do that? Simple, you have to take the extra time to make sure that your logos are ledgible, clean, fully filled in, and even. Take your time and make sure every pixel is perfect. I see so many people who overlook this and honestly it irks me to no end.

Your concept here seems to fall short of doing that. Im not sure if its the template or the font or waht, but this screams Paint.

[winghaz]

I would LOVE to see a Washington Nationals concept that doesn't include a DC cap.

[Jigga]

I changed the reds, and some uniform elements. Also i redid the whole wordmark and cap concept.

I wont have the logos up for awhile. I need alot of time on those.

It ain't just the logo, you need a lot of time on the whole thing. What's with the wordmark dude? WTF is that capital S doing there. Attention to detail, young man! Attention to detail!

Do better work. Then post. It's not because you have/use paint or even because you're new to this that people are critical, it's because this isn't good enough even for YOU to feel comfortable with it. That should tell you something.

What, did you spend 20 minutes on this one instead of 15?